Ecosystem services of the cryogenic environments: identification, evaluation and monetisation - A review

• Autorzy: Abakumov Evgeny , Suleymanov Azamat , Guzov Yuriy , Titov Victor , Vashuk Angelina , Shestakova Elena , Fedorova Irina

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/jwld.2021.139937

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The article discusses the valuation of ecosystem services in connection with the economic activity of the Russian Federation in the Arctic zone. It also considers the categories of ecosystem services in general and the assessment of ecosystem services in the Arctic in particular. The article also considers types of negative impacts on the Arctic ecosystems, their assessment, and investment risks existing in ecosystem services. It is shown that the application of the methodology and ecosystem services contributes to the adequate assessment and creation of a hierarchical classification of “usefulness” and “benefits” for society derived from the existence, use, and non-use of ecosystems. The concept of Arctic ecosystem services consists of three components: identification, monetisation, and ecological risk assessment. Identification, classification, and initial assessment, mainly at the qualitative level, allow us to determine and classify services for further improvement of life quality and regulation of socio-economic effects of environmental changes. Quantitative assessment is related to the identification of the degree of ecosystem service amenability. The example of the Arctic ecosystems shows that the possibility to assess and the accuracy of the assessment can be quite different and largely depends on the type of service. The analysis of possible ecosystem services and their relationship with the quality of life in the Russian Arctic indicates significant investment risks.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

amenability; Arctic; cryogenic environment; economic assessment; ecosystem services; monetisation

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo ITP
• Czasopismo: Journal of Water and Land Development
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: no. 52
• Strony: 1--8
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 47 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Abakumov Evgeny

• Saint Petersburg State University, 16 line 29 Vasilyevskiy Island, 199178, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5248-9018

autor

Suleymanov Azamat

• Saint Petersburg State University, 16 line 29 Vasilyevskiy Island, 199178, Saint-Petersburg, Russia
• Ufa State Petroleum Technological University, Ufa, Russia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7754-0406

autor

Guzov Yuriy

• Saint Petersburg State University, 16 line 29 Vasilyevskiy Island, 199178, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5710-5300

autor

Titov Victor

• Saint Petersburg State University, 16 line 29 Vasilyevskiy Island, 199178, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2005-0123

autor

Vashuk Angelina

• Saint Petersburg State University, 16 line 29 Vasilyevskiy Island, 199178, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4900-4830

autor

Shestakova Elena

• Saint Petersburg State University, 16 line 29 Vasilyevskiy Island, 199178, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2006-682X

autor

Fedorova Irina

• Saint Petersburg State University, 16 line 29 Vasilyevskiy Island, 199178, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5370-427X

Bibliografia

• ABAKUMOV E., MORGUN E., PECHKIN A., POLYAKOV V. 2020. Abandoned agricultural soils from the central part of the Yamal region of Russia: Morphology, diversity, and chemical properties. Open Agriculture. Vol. 5. No. 1 p. 94–106. DOI 10.1515/opag-2020-0010.
• ALCAMO J., BENNETT E.M., HASSAN R. (eds.) 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Ser. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington D.C., USA. Island Press. ISBN 9781559634021 pp. 212.
• BERKES F. 2002. Cross-scale institutional linkages: Perspectives from the bottom up. In: The drama of the commons. Eds. E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich, E.U. Weber. Washington, DC, USA. National Academy Press, p. 293–322.
• BHATTARI U. 2017. Impacts of climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Direction for future research. Hydro Nepal Journal of Water Energy and Environment. Vol. 20 p. 41–48. DOI 10.3126/hn.v20i0.16488.
• BOBYLEV S.N., ZAKHAROV V.M. 2009. Ekosistemnyye uslugi i ekonomika [Ecosystem services and the economy]. Moskva, Russia. OOO Tipografiya LEVKO», Institut ustoychivogo razvitiya/Tsentr ekologicheskoy politiki Rossii pp. 72.
• COSTANZA R. 1992. Toward an operational definition of ecosystem health. In: Ecosystem health. New Goals for Environmental Management. Eds. R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, B.D. Haskell. Washington D.C. Island Press. p. 239–256.
• COSTANZA R., D’ARGE R., DE GROOT R., FARBER S., GRASSO M., HANNON B., ... VAN DEN BELT M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. Vol. 387 p. 253–260. DOI 10.1038/387253a0.
• DIETZ T. 2003. What is a good decision? Human Ecology Review. Vol. 10 p. 60–67.
• DIETZ T., STERN P.C. 1998. Science, values and biodiversity. BioScience. Vol. 48 p. 441–444.
• DYAKONOV K.N., DONCHEVA A.V. 2002. Ekologicheskoye proyektirova- niye i ekspertiza [Environmental design and expertise]. Moscow, Russia. Aspect-Press. ISBN 5-7567-0177-X pp. 384.
• Federal Law of 24.07.2009 N 209-FZ. On hunting and on the conservation of hunting resources and on amending certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation pp. 57.
• GOMES E., INÁCIO M., BOGDZEVIČ K., KALINAUSKAS M., KARNAUSKAITĖ D., PEREIRA P. 2021. Future land-use changes and its impacts on terrestrial ecosystem services: A review. Science of The Total Environment. Vol. 781, 146716. DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146716.
• HAINES-YOUNG R., POTSCHIN M.B. 2017. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the application of the revised structure [online]. [Access 10.05.2021]. Available at: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/ 2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf
• HEMMATI M. 2001. Multi-stakeholder processes: A methodological framework. Executive summary. Principles step-by-step guide [online]. London. UNED Forum pp. 28. [Access 13.04.2021]. Available at: https://www.pgexchange.org/msp/MSP%20Report%20Exec%20Summary%20April%202001.pdf
• JOUQUET P., TRAORÉ S., CHOOSAI C, HARTMANN C, BIGNELL D. 2011. Influence of termites on ecosystem functioning. Ecosystem services provided by termites. European Journal of Soil Biology. Vol. 4 p. 215–222. DOI 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.05.005.
• KART AKTAS N., YILDIZ DONMEZ N. 2019. Effects of urbanisation and human activities on basin ecosystem: Sapanca Lake basin. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology. Vol. 20. No. 1 p. 102– 122.
• KEESSTRA S., NUNES J., NOVARA A., FINGER D., AVELAR D., KALANTARI Z., CERDÀ A. 2018. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Science of The Total Environment. Vol. 610–611 p. 997–1009. DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077.
• LUKIN V.V., KLOKOV V.D., POMELOV V.N. (eds.) 2002. Sistema dogovora ob Antarctice. Pravovye kommentarii [System the Antarctic Treaty. The legal comments]. St. Petersburg. Hydrometeoizdat pp. 400.
• MÄLER K.-G., GREN I., FOLKE C. 1994. Multiple use of environmental resources: A household production function approach to valuing natural capital. In Investing in natural capital. Eds. A. Jansson, M. Hammar, C. Folke, R. Costanza., Washington, DC. Island Press p. 234–249.
• MARTIN S.L., BALANCE L.T., GROVES T. 2016. An ecosystem services perspective for the oceanic eastern tropical Pacific: Commercial fisheries, carbon storage, recreational fishing, and biodiversity. Frontiers in Marine Science. Vol. 50 No. 3. DOI 10.3389/fmars.2016.00050.
• MELNIKOV V.P., GENNADINIK V.B., BROUSHKOV A.V. 2013. Aspects of cryosophy: cryodiversity in nature. Earth Cryosphere. Vol. 17. No. 2 p. 3–11.
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and human well- being. Synthesis [online]. Washington D.C., USA. Island Press. ISBN 1-59726-040-1 pp. 160. [Access 10.05.2021]. Available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
• NYKA M. 2017. The concept of ecosystem services in regulation of human activity at sea. Maritime Law. Vol. 33 p. 87–104.
• PASCUAL U., MURADIAN R., BRANDER L., GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN E., MARTÍN- LÓPEZ B., VERMA M. ..., POLASKY S. 2010. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In: The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic founda- tion. Ed. P. Kumar. London, UK. Routledge p. 183–256.
• PEREIRA P., BOGUNOVIC I., ZHAO W., BARCELO D. 2021. Short-term effect of wildfires and prescribed fires on ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Science and Health. Vol. 22, 100266. DOI 10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100266.
• PETER H.U., BRAUN C., MUSTAFA O., PFIFER S. 2008. Risk assessment for the Fildes Peninsula and Ardley Island, and development of management plans for their designation as specially protected or specially managed areas. Ser. Texte. Nr. 20. Jena, Germany. Federal Environment Agency. ISSN 1862-4804 pp. 508.
• PETKOVA E., MAURER C., HENNINGER N., FRANCES I. 2002. Closing the gap: Information, participation, and justice in decision making for the environment. Washington DC, USA. World Resources Institute. ISBN 978-1569735251 pp. 153.
• Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/ 2007. OJL 150, 14 June 2018.
• ROLANDO J.L., TURIN C., RAMÍREZ D.A., MARES V., MONERRIS J., QUIROZ R. 2017. Key ecosystem services and ecological intensification of agriculture in the tropical high-Andean Puna as affected by land- use and climate changes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Vol. 236 p. 221–233. DOI 10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.010.
• ROSENBERG A.G. 2014. Otsenki ekosistemnykh uslug dlya territorii Samarskoy oblasti [Assessment of ecosystem services for the territory of the Samara region]. Povolzhskiy ekologicheskiy zhurnal. Vol. 1 p. 139–145.
• Roshydromet 2008. Assessment report on climate change and its consequences in Russian Federation. General summary. Moscow. Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring. ISBN 978-5-904-206-96-03 pp. 24.
• Rospotrebnadzor 2010. Sanitarno-epidemiologicheskiye trebovaniya k organizatsiyam, osushchestvlyayushchim meditsinskuyu deya- tel’nost’ Sanitarno-epidemiologicheskiye pravila i normativy SanPiN 2.1.3.2630–10. The Decree from May, 18th, 2010 N 58 On approval SanPiN 2.1.3.2630-10 “Sanitary-epidemiological requirements for organizations engaged in medical activities” (with changes on 10 June 2016). Moskva. Federal’nyy tsentr gigiyeny i epidemiologii Rospotrebnadzora. ISBN 978-5-7508- 0925-7 pp. 255.
• Rosvodresursy 2014. Skhema kompleksnogo ispol’zovaniya i okhrany vodnykh ob"yektov basseyna r. Pyasina [Scheme of complex use and protection of water objects of the basin of the Pyasina] [online]. Approved by the order of the EBVU dated June 20, No. 96. Moskva. Federalnoye agentsvo vodnykh resursov. [Access 03.02.2021]. Available at: http://skiovo.enbvu.ru/
• SANTAREM F., SAAREN J., BRITO J.C. 2019.Mapping and analyzing cultural ecosystem services in conflict areas. Ecological Indicators. Vol. 110, 105943. DOI 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105943.
• SEAA 2021. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting - Ecosystem Accounting. [online]. United Nations pp. 371. [Access 29.09.2021]. Available at: https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting
• STERN P.C., FINEBERG H. (eds.) 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Eds. P.C. Stern, H. Fineberg. Washington, DC. National Academy Press, ISBN 978- 0309089562 pp. 264.
• STOLBOVOI V., MCCALLUM I. (eds.) 2002. Land resources of Russia [CD- ROM]. Laxenburg, Austria. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and the Russian Academy of Science.
• SYLLA M., LASOTA T., SZEWRAŃSKI S. 2019. Valuing environmental amenities in peri-urban areas: Evidence from Poland. Sustainability. Vol. 11(3), 570. DOI 10.3390/su11030570.
• TEEB 2008. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. An interim report. European Communities. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. ISBN-13 978-92-79-08960-2 pp. 64.
• TELEGA I. 2019. Ecosystem services in competing land use model with infrastructure effect. Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics. Vol. 11. No. 2 p. 73–92.
• The Madrid Protocol 1991. Protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic Treaty [online]. Madrid pp. 61. [Access 10.04.2021]. Available at: https://documents.ats.aq/recatt/Att006_e.pdf
• TIKHONOVA T.V. 2017. Evaluation of the capacity of ecosystems in the subarctic territories of the Komi Republic. Proceedings of the Komi scientific center of UB RAS. Vol. 1. No. 17, 117.
• Tromsø Declaration on the occasion of the Sixth Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council. The 29th of April, 2009, Tromsø, Norway [online]. [Access 10.04.20221]. Available at: http://library.arctic- portal.org/1253/
• VERBITSKY J. 2018. Ecosystem services and Antarctica: The time has come? Ecosystem Services. Vol. 29. Part B p. 381–394. DOI 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.015.
• WWF-Russia 2014. Protected areas in the Russian Arctic: Current state and prospects for development. Moscow. World Wide Fund for Nature pp. 239.
• YANG S., ZHAO W., LIU Y., CHERUBINI F., FU B., PEREIRA P. 2020. Prioritizing sustainable development goals and linking them to ecosystem services: A global expert’s knowledge evaluation. Geography and Sustainability. Vol. 1. No. 4 p. 321–330. DOI 10.1016/j.geosus.2020.09.004.
• ZUBRZYCKI S., KUTZBACH L., PFEIFFER E-M. 2014. Permafrost-affected soils and their carbon pools with a focus on the Russian Arctic. Solid Earth. Vol. 5 p. 595–609. DOI 10.5194/se-5-595-2014.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).